interested in motor carrier safety issues; the Secretary of Transportation;
the Administrator of FMCSA; and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
To report on the extent to which the Performance Registration
Information Systems Management (PRISM) grants program has effectively removed unsafe carriers from the roadway, we obtained Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) data on the number of motor carriers that had vehicle registrations denied, suspended, or revoked.
These data are to be reported to FMCSA on a quarterly basis by states that have implemented PRISM to the point where they are denying,
suspending, and revoking vehicle registrations of out-of-service carriers.
We interviewed officials from FMCSA to discuss how data are collected and verified and how the data are used to assess PRISM’s effectiveness.
We also conducted semistructured interviews with a nongeneralizable sample of state motor vehicle administration officials and state law enforcement officials from 13 states that deny, suspend, or revoke vehicle registrations to discuss their state’s experience implementing PRISM, how effective the program has been, and the soundness and conclusiveness of reported data. We selected the 13 states based on their progress
implementing PRISM and their status as states with the largest numbers of commercial vehicles registered through the International Registration Plan (IRP).1 We selected states with the most vehicles registered, assuming that the proportion of out-of-service vehicles are distributed relatively evenly across states. State data on out-of-service vehicles are incomplete, and we did not test this assumption.
In determining the reliability of FMCSA’s data on the number of motor carriers that had vehicle registrations denied, suspended, or revoked because of an out-of-service order, we interviewed officials from FMCSA who are knowledgeable about the data and how the data are collected and analyzed. We also attempted to obtain similar information from states that are fully implementing PRISM. We identified shortcomings with these data, which we disclosed in this report, but found the data sufficiently reliable for our purpose, which was to provide a general sense of the extent to which PRISM implementation has resulted in vehicle registration sanctions.
We met with state officials and representatives from motor carrier
industry and safety associations and obtained their views on the extent to which PRISM has improved highway safety or had other benefits. (See
1In two cases, we met with officials from states in the early stages of our engagement, before we finalized our methodology. In another case, we met with a state that was not fully implementing PRISM at that time, but subsequently obtained full implementation status.
table 2 at the end of this appendix for a list of industry and safety associations we interviewed.) We reviewed a 2007 Volpe National Transportation Systems Center evaluation of the PRISM program that reported on the extent to which PRISM has improved roadway safety and the limitations to FMCSA’s data on the denial of commercial vehicle registrations to motor carriers FMCSA placed out of service. Finally, we reviewed information from interviews and the 2007 Volpe report to identify and describe the factors that limit PRISM’s effectiveness.
To report on the potential to fully implement the program nationally, we met with officials from FMCSA, state motor vehicle administrations, and state law enforcement offices in 26 selected states, as well as
representatives from industry and safety associations. We conducted semistructured interviews with state motor vehicle administrations from 13 states that have fully implemented PRISM; 3 states that are
implementing the grant program (that is, they are collecting vehicle identification numbers and the DOT numbers of the carriers associated with those vehicles and may be checking the safety status of the carrier at the time of registration) but do not yet have the capability to affect vehicle registrations; 8 states that have entered into an agreement with FMCSA to implement PRISM grants but have not yet moved forward substantially to implement the program; and 2 states that do not participate in PRISM at all. (See table 2 for a list of state agencies we interviewed.) We selected these states based on their progress implementing PRISM and their status as states with the largest numbers of commercial vehicles registered through the IRP in 2006, the latest year for which full data were available at the time we selected states to interview. We reviewed FMCSA data regarding the time states have taken to reach the ability to deny, suspend, or revoke vehicle registrations of out-of-service carriers, after signing a statement of intent to participate in the PRISM program. We analyzed testimonial evidence to identify factors that enabled states to deny, suspend, and revoke registrations and factors that have delayed or prevented other states from moving forward. We also analyzed the information to identify the factors FMCSA can affect and those it cannot.
As part of our work on the potential to implement the program nationally, we conducted a general search of public policy literature for when a mandatory or voluntary approach is preferred for program participation and to achieve certain desired outcomes. Through our literature search, which covered materials dating from 1998 to 2008, we identified and analyzed five articles that listed conditions for when a mandatory or voluntary approach works best. The articles described when a mandatory or voluntary approach is preferable for implementing environmental,
animal production and processing, and food safety regulations on private sector entities; we did not find literature that identified conditions for when a federal agency should administer a mandatory or voluntary approach on state governments to achieve a certain desired outcome.
Furthermore, we identified similar, comparative programs that have mandatory elements. In addition, we identified and analyzed drawbacks to mandating state implementation of PRISM and potential options available to Congress for encouraging—rather than mandating—state legislative or regulatory action that could speed nationwide PRISM implementation.
Finally, we assessed FMCSA’s oversight for those states that are denying, suspending, and revoking registrations by obtaining testimonial
information on FMCSA’s efforts to assist them in continuing to operate PRISM.
Table 2: State Agencies and Industry and Safety Associations Interviewed
States denying, suspending, or revoking vehicle registrations of out-of-service carriers Alabama Department of Revenue
Alabama FMCSA Division Office Georgia Department of Revenue Georgia Department of Public Safety Idaho Transportation Department Iowa Department of Transportation Iowa FMCSA Division Office
Minnesota Department of Public Safety Minnesota FMCSA Division Office
Minnesota State Patrol, Commercial Vehicle Division Missouri Department of Transportation
Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles Nebraska State Patrol
New Mexico Commercial Vehicle Bureau, Taxation and Revenue Department New Mexico Department of Public Safety
New Mexico FMCSA Division Office
North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles North Carolina FMCSA Division Office North Carolina State Highway Patrol
Ohio Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Motor Vehicles Ohio Contractor, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.
Ohio FMCSA Division Office Ohio State Highway Patrol
Tennessee Department of Revenue
Tennessee Department of Safety, Highway Patrol Utah Division of Motor Vehicles
Utah Department of Public Safety, Highway Patrol Washington Department of Licensing
Washington FMCSA Division Office Washington State Patrol
States that implement PRISM but do not yet have capability to sanction vehicle registrations Indiana FMCSA Division Office
Indiana Department of Revenue Indiana State Police
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Texas Department of Transportation States committed to implementing PRISM California Department of Motor Vehicles California Highway Patrol
Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Illinois Office of the Secretary of State
Illinois FMCSA Division Office
Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles Mississippi State Tax Commission
Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Transportation Division Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
Virginia State Police
Wisconsin Department of Transportation States not participating in PRISM Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration Michigan Department of State
Industry associations
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators American Trucking Associations
United Motorcoach Association Safety associations
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Truck Safety Coalition
Source: GAO.
Susan A. Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov.
In addition to the contact named above, James Ratzenberger (Assistant Director), Michelle Everett (Analyst-in-Charge), Samer Abbas, Brandon Haller, Delwen Jones, Hannah Laufe, Joshua Ormond, and made key contributions to this report.